Comments

I was a mite upset, though, how ‘Mr. Science’ never bothered to explain why the iron filings act as they do, or even the more detailed nature of how they act. The answer, of course, is that iron, being a magnetic material, lines up along the magnetic field lines.

Mr.Science looks a little like Gomez Addams. Obviously no shortage of BrylCream in the 50’s. And I’m impressed he’s in a lab coat. You’re not a proper scientist unless you’re wearing lab coat….and fiddling with a Bunsen burner.

Oh god that was hilarious when the experiment with the egg worked! I wonder if they had a whole bit worked out about it not working for Mr. Science.

As an aside, I wonder how many American adults today would be able to remember the principles behind these types of homemade experiments. Actually, I hated stuff like this when I was younger; all I wanted to do was read about the theory in the textbooks.

Ah, the Good Ol’ Days when comedy relied on humor. I’m so jaded now, I was sure I was about to get Rick Rolled. I have to say, that egg-in-the-bottle thing was nifty-keen. I wonder if it would work with a hamster?

I think the kid would make a good scientist, most scientists were snotty kids once. Why do some filings go to the north pole and some to the south? Why don’t they all go to the north pole? is it the same filings everytime? What experiment could I perform to test that?

How does the pencil write on glass? Could I make a pencil that will write on glass? What would I use?

I used to do science demonstrations for my sons’ classes, and I’ve done that egg thing a couple of times. It’s fun when it works.

My favorite demo was making some CO2 with baking soda and vinegar, and pouring the gas into one side of a paper bag scale. It was pretty neat to watch the kids’ faces as that side of the scale went down.

Aha! You see? There are questions that scientists can’t answer about magnets! This throws the whole ‘theory’ of magnetics into question.

I propose a new theory called “Intelligent Pushing”, whereby some higher power (not sayin’ who, wink wink) pushes certain things toward magnets because they are so nice and shiny. Why isn’t aluminium magnetic? Cause he doesn’t like aluminium for some reason. QED.

Onias @ #24: Yeah we did expect that, sorta. That’s why we were all laughing our heads off. Cripes, I remember the whole school hiding under our desks and saying the Rosary by way of Civil Defense drill during the Cuban missile crisis, too; guess the ’50s lasted that long in some ways.

But Ernie Kovacs! My early heartthrob! (One of several.) And on YouTube! Ah, the world is a wonderful place sometimes. {skip, whistle}

Bride of Shrek, you must be young. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.) Insightful, too. I had a teenage crush on the first Gomez when he was still Dickens or was it Fenster? Maybe that’s why, the resemblance to Ernie. That was at least a decade later, tho’.

if you could put a link in your posts any time you put a YouTube video up that would be sweet – on my iPhone it wont play embeded videos but it will play YouTube videos if I click on a direct link to them.

Thanks in advance PZ! ( and as they say in radio ‘long time reader, first time poster’ ha)

Great video. I do think the lack of explanation with the iron filings reflects a real problem in American science education, though — “experiments” that are really just demonstrations of well-established principles without any explanatory content. It gives a mistaken impression of what science is….

The announcer in that clip is Bill Wendell, who was for many years the announcer for “Late Night With David Letterman” on NBC.

But here’s the zinger…

There is a rumor in the Youtube comments that “Johnny” may be a very young Christopher Walken.

“Walken entered the planet Showbiz when he was a year old, by the time Christopher was 7, he did walk-ons, catalogue modeling. Between regular appearances at ‘Ernie Kovacs’, ‘Philco TV Playhouse’, ‘The Colgate Comedy Hour’, and a series called The Wonderful John Acton, as Kevin Actons.”

P.Z., I could not use reply to make the following:
Do you dissent from Eugenies C.Scott’s assertion that when certain scientists maintain there is no cosmic teleology, that they are making a philosophical pointl rather than a scientific fact. I follow Weisz in “The Science of Biology,” that science finds causalism rather than teleology at work.” End states are consequences [ I say causal] not foregone conclusions of beginning states[ teleology.”Otherwise, one ” explains an end state by simply asserting it given at the beginning. And in thereby putting the future into the past, the effect before the cause,teleology negates time.”
I take this finding to find that causal natural selection thus contradicts teleological God and thus, theistic evolution is an oxymoron. Selection is its own boss,not needing Super Boss and at cross position with it. Otherwise, the new Omphalos argument ensues that there is deception, which is that selection merely follows out the it had to be plans of God at work.
And furthermore, all teleology – fine-tuning, probability, from reason and design- beg the question that Super Boss had us in mind rather than we are the products of natural causes, the sufficient reason, contrary to Leibniz..
Please,P.Z., set me straight on this! Thanks for all your work and any response to this.
Thanks, Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth [ skeptic griggsy]